The mainstream media's bias against guns is clearly evident in the way headlines
and story content lie, exaggerate, sensationalize, and try to mislead the public
into following their agenda.
In the "Blowback" section, where Daniel White answers selected comments, he had a comment by Portland Progressive Examiner that said:
What is wrong with an assault weapon's ban? Why does anyone need an assault weapon? Is the gun lobby capable of any compromise?
Now, I don't often comment on these articles, but I couldn't help myself. My comments follow:
Now, I do not really want him, or anyone else to cede any of their rights. Liberty was too costly to just throw it away, and doing so stomps on the graves of those who fought so hard for it. It is a precious gift. But how else do we make it clear that this is not an issue of "compromise." What you are asking is for some of us to give up our rights so you can feel more comfortable. I, for one, am through doing so.
Reading the Blowback from Portland Progressive Examiner, you answered very well. You were very restrained. I would have had to post something like the following:
"The story of gun control in this country is one of they propose, and we "compromise." And we compromise, and compromise, and compromise. Each time we are promised that if we give up just a little of our rights (guaranteed by the Bill of Rights no less), that we will be much safer. We "compromise", but they never deliver on the "safer" part. Instead they always come back with yet more gun control. 20,000 gun laws later, and now they want us to give up semi-auto rifles, calling them "assault weapons." But you see, calls for so called "assault weapon" bans can be best characterized not as compromise but as ceding of our rights. So, here's the deal, you give up some of your rights, guaranteed under the Bill of Rights, and we'll keep ours. When you get up to 20,000 laws ceding your rights, and still you aren't safer, then lets talk. What do you say?"
read more digg story